In class we were discussing the philosophy of Parmenides who believed anything you could think of existed and the guide to knowledge was existence. This somehow got me thinking about thought and existence. Do you always of the knowledge of a thing and it is just a dormant thought in your head (very Socratic!) or does "sensing" the object put the thought in your head? I think Parmenides reject both options and say if you can think it, it exists and you can't trust your senses since those can be decieved (how Cartesian!)
This little play in my head of what could come first got me to thinking of a debate in a subject I hold near to my heart, psychology!
Theories of emotions are psychological theories (of course) about how the brain and body react to emotions. Basically the debate is do physiological response to stimuli evoke the cognitive response or does the felt emotion evoke the physiological response or do they both happen at the same time? It's really a chicken or the egg type debate.
There are three main theories on this subject:
James-Lange theory- This is James as in William James, father of Psychology. How exciting! Basically these bros say that the physical response to a stimuli precedes the cognitive response. In modern times this theory is not widely accepted because we now know it takes a few seconds for the physiological response to take full effect. I'm sure most people can tell you feeling and thinking emotions happens close to simultaneously. Which brings us to our next theory...
Cannon-Bard Theory- Physiological response and cognition happens simultaneously. This one to me is a little boring. Not really much to discuss. Next please!
Two-factor Theory - This is my favorite because it is very complex (not very, but more complex than the formers.) This theory does believe that physical stimulus comes first but instead neatly going to emotion your brain must process the reason for the arousal. Cheesy example: You walk to class feeling more elated than the norm. Your brain at the speed of light thinks of reasons why this could happen...why that cute guy/girl who gave you a cute smile in the gym is in the next class! My oh my! But real the reason you feel so elated is your endocrine system felt like testing out its endorphins. I'm a romance killer...sorry yall :(
I'm currently dating a philosophy major who took a psychology class last semester. After most classes he had this to say "Psychology is figuring out all the things Philosophy did like 200 years ago!" Too bad psychology>philosophy!

Munich

I was watching the movie Munich this weekend and I started wondering about what constitutes justice. In the movie, the main character, Avner, assembles a team and kills many of the Palestinian terrorists involved in the assassination of the Israeli Olympic Athletes. After this movie I was wondering what is Justice? At what point did Avner's revenge stop becoming "justice". Was it even justice in the first place? At first I completely supported his mission to kill the terrorists but started questioning it when he started seeing his targets as actual people. In reality his actions were also acts of terror. This movie was a great example of how can be destroyed during their quest for justice and if justice ever really exists.

What to do until Monday?

So kiddos we talked a lot about Socratic virtue today. For Monday you need to be prepared to tell me what Aristotle thinks of virtue. So go to your textbooks and look up Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and have a great read. Be thinking about the nature of the soul, happiness and what it means to be good.

Have a nice break!
Dr. Layne

Immortality of the soul

In class this week we discussed common fallacies, Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Xenophanes, Pythagoreans, and the immortality of the soul. We read about Socrates belief on the human soul when someone dies. He stated about four main reasons why souls are immortal, and proof to back his argument up. The first reason was souls are eternal and unchanging, the soul bring life and is “imperishable.” The next reason is the Theory of Recollection that states that souls existed before birth to be able to retain that knowledge. The third reason is our souls live on when our bodies die and decay. The last reason was the argument from form of life which states of our soul can never die. Socrates stated, “If the doctrine which you are fond of stating, that our learning is only a process of recollection, be true, then I suppose we must have learned at some former time what we recollect now.” I found this very interesting because I have never really thought of it that way. If all souls were immortal would all people start to act in an immortal way and be sad or not? I believe Socrates was a great philosopher. His arguments gave many people hope in the world of an afterlife and a reason to not be sad.

Harmony

With our class's recent discussions about the sources of knowledge, such as the various arches, I began to reconsider what truly merits an objective perspective toward the world. Are we bound by the restrictions of human observation, making any sort of scientific or religious implications a potential bias? According to the principals of scientific study, our theories and ideas of the world are only built on what we can assume is true through the scientific method. However, even with this very strict foundation, we have still envisioned a universe filled with unexplainable phenomena and enough questions to occupy the rest of human civilization. While we may have accepted that it's impossible to know everything about our existence, we still continue to strive for a greater understanding of the world around us and the forces it uses to operate. The concept of philosophy draws attention to these questions that are, for the most part, unanswerable by scientific means and tries to assess some sort of conclusion from them. This does not mean that science cannot weave itself into these, however, as many new and old philosophies build upon the road of supposed knowledge that science has paved. Issues of faith are often put under fire with scientific interrogation, but even the fundamentals of science itself can be put into the realm of the unanswerable. For example, what initial forces caused the laws of physics to be set into motion? Are these forces observable on a spectrum not contained by light? Combining and harmonizing the different methods of thinking, both scientific and philosophic, can reveal the true vastness of what we do and do not know about the universe surrounding our tiny existences.

So All IS Number?

I have never though of math as something beautiful until Friday's class discussion. I like Pythagoreans' idea that everything is related in a unified whole. What I do not understand, however, is how man us the number 250 and justice the number 4. I am curious about the equation and how these numbers are actually achieved. I did not appreciate Pythagoreans' ideas until we were presented with the thought that the soul is through and through number therefore it cannot be destroyed and the body is irrelevant as our essence is number. I could better understand the arche "All is number" after thinking on that statement. Personally, I dwell too much on the body and I forget that our physical presence on earth is actually temporary and our soul is the part of us that cannot be destroyed. Pythagoreans not only reminded me of this but presented the soul in a way that I had never considered before. The idea that my body along with many other bodies could simply be a vessel for the same soul makes me feel more connected to the past. It also makes me want to take better care of the soul that could be passed on after I die. I do not fully believe in reincarnation, but I do think it is comforting to know that I could be, just like everyone else, a vital part of this large puzzle and mathematical equation that makes up the universe.

in light of the pre-socratics

In our discussion of the pre-socratics this past week, I never exactly found a philosopher that I completely identified with or agreed with, but I did find that certain aspects and ideals of some of these philosophers especially appealed to me. I loved Thales' idea of priority over multiplicity, and his psychological idea that to know thyself is to know the all. I don't think I totally agree or understand how to know thyself is to know the all, but I do believe that having a sense of who you are as a human is a significant priority for further understanding and discovery. Also, through his philosophy, his ideology pertains to Phaedo in that the soul is deathless. Secondly, I also could identify with Anaximander's appreciation for mystery, because he says that the final goal of philosophy is unattainable. I agree with him in that I also believe that not all questions relating to philosophy can be answered, and that some ideas are meant to be beyond us as humans, because we are limited. Finally, I enjoyed Pythagorus' philosophical understanding because he has an appreciation for the soul being immortal. In saying that everything is number, he says that we are more than our bodies in essence, because number cannot be destroyed.

Parmenides: Fight Club

According to the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides, thinking thoughts are real. If so wouldn't in the movie Fight Club the main character, Edward, not really be delusional? A movie where Edward, an insomniac, makes up the friend Tyler Durden in order to get him though his frustrations of not sleeping. Throughout this movie the two become very close, only to find out in the end that Tyler is never really there...or is he? If Edward was thinking of Tyler would not he be real? Since Tyler is a thought, he is created and therefore is real. Where is the boarder of real and not real when our soul, according to Plato and Socrates, is a separate entity from our body, therefore we cant see our soul; but it is real and there. Tyler, never seen by anyone other then Edward, must be real. Tyler is a thought but is still in existence since he was thought up or in other words "introduced" to Edward. Maybe Edward is not crazy of thinking that Tyler is real, Edward could just be considered privileged to have the opportunity to have met Tyler, and the only Being fortunate enough to see him.

The Fog

In many ways life can be compared to the fog. Most people follow the same route when going to work everyday, and in some cases remain in the same lane day in and day out. Despite this constant model when there is fog present people hesitate, fear, and go so far as to change their usual route. However, there is the one driver who weaves in and out just as he would on a clear day. His confidence is rarely seen and is viewed as either a genius driver, or an asshole. In life we follow virtually the same pattern. Our destination is inevitable and somehow we know how to navigate when the weather is clear. But in those few instances we are reminded that we are on a path that cannot be changed, we are terrified and try desperately to change. Those few people who don't fret over the reminders are those who may unconsciously know the answer to what is our final destination.

My New Philosophy

Although this might be quite nerdy, every time I'm in Philosophy class, I start to sing this song from the "You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown" musical. Kristin Chenoweth sings as Sally Brown "My New Philosophy." In this song, she chooses a different phrase as her philosophy every 5 seconds. Schroeder tries to explain that philosophies take a very long time to construct, but she insists that they only take a minute!

Do you think that Socrates changed his mind every 5 seconds like Sally Brown at first? Did it take him his whole life to gather his thoughts and make his philosophies?

Here is a clip of the song. It's for a kid's show, so it's a little corny. :)

What? Yeah, whatever, Socrates.

The Phaedo was a nice read, and worked very well with our discussion of Arche in class last week. It's almost like they were planned to go together. Either way, it was nice to see a new side of Socratic discourse in this recollection of Socrates' final hours. That is, the discourse of patronizing Socrates.

In the Phaedo, Socrates spent considerable time lecturing rather than discussing. Sure, Cebes and Simmias were listening intently, but they kept brushing off Socrates. Socrates would make a new point or assumption, and Cebes would just go, "Of course it is Socrates/Sure, Socrates/You say it is so, Socrates/Yes, S0c-YOU'RE ABOUT TO DIE, THIS SUCKS." Only one of those is made up. I like that even on his literal deathbed, Socrates took to making a point, which just happened to coincide with assuaging everyone's sorrows about his death. And while he goes on making this point, his followers are too worried about his imminent departure to appreciate the consolation they're getting in the present. "Just keep saying yes, he'll run out of wind eventually." Too bad that happened due to hemlock rather than air supply.

Atomism

As a chemist by trade one of the things that Dr. Layne had mentioned in lecture were the Atomists and that made me perk up a little bit in class .

She mentioned how they believed all things came from atoms and I think to myself, "yes! Finally away from all that water and air stuff!" Now we're on to something that I can agree to, atoms composing everything in the natural world. Now it is known that there are numerous subatomic particles that even make up atoms, but for the ancient world this is still a pretty cool notion.

When I first cam across this thought of everything being made up of atoms as a kid I then wondered, "If all things are atoms, then there are tiny tiny gaps between all the atoms. If all things have all these gaps because they are made of atoms if I were to sit in a chair over and over and over again and aligned everything just right, would all the 'atom gaps' line up and I could then pass through the chair?" Silly yes, but I still wondered and pondered until I later learned about all the electrostatic interactions that occur both intermolecularly and intramolecularly. It made sense to me and really it was this question that got me interested in the sciences.

Since atoms are made up of neutrons, electrons, protons, etc. are there neutronists and electronists much like there are atomists? Or are they encompassed by the atomists? Or are they known as today's chemists and physicists?

I may be interested in the atomists the most because I think I would like to owe it to them in a round about sort of way for my love of the sciences.

Buff-aedo

(Spoiler alert!)

Plato portrays a touching death of Socrates, who spends his final hours assuring his students (or the fearful child within his students, as Cebes suggests) that death is not frightening. Once again, the scene is mirrored by Whedon in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, in the final episode of season 6.

Socrates' role, his identity, is that of "philosopher." As Plato characterizes him, this role pushes him not only to pursue the highest truth, but to push others to look beyond what is most obviously apparent in the world. We see this in his interactions with his students in Phaedo. He feels a responsibility to the knowledge he seeks, and this responsibility creates a bond between him and others. He is driven to pull others toward knowledge, just as he is driven toward knowledge himself.

Although Buffy has a very different role, that of the Slayer, she is subject to a similar responsibility. She is responsible to destiny, and her destiny is to be the people's protector. Like Socrates worked to defend the people from ignorance, Buffy worked to defend the people from vampires and other demons.

As Socrates explains, the lovers of knowledge are awarded the best position for their immortal souls after death. This is his role, and he has lived it well, so he approaches death without fear. As he drinks the hemlock and his body dies, he implies that he is being healed from the sickness of bodily imprisonment. He can now reside in pure knowledge.

Buffy expresses similar thoughts when she sacrifices her own life in the final episode of season 6, for her sister, Dawn's. "This is the work that I have to do," she tells Dawn. "I'm okay...You have to be strong. The hardest thing in this world is to live in it. Be brave. Live. For me."

As Socrates accepts his coming death as an escape from the temptations and fallacies of the body, Buffy accepts her death as the ideal act of duty and protection. She encourages Dawn to use her memory to be brave, and to not shy away from the world when living is difficult. Socrates asks his students to serve his memory by living lives "for their own selves," to not be swayed by the ideas or criticisms of the masses. Both, as guides and friends, encourage those they leave behind to face the challenge of the conflict between internal and external worlds.

Both died at peace, moving toward an ideal they had lived for.

I don’t see the point in searching for an arche. I like a good mystery. Perhaps something is wrong with me, but I think that the world is more exciting to live in because of all the things we don’t know. Anyway, I think it’s interesting how the philosophers of ancient Greece used logic to keep advancing ideas. For example, the idea of water was rejected because it could never create fire, therefore it could not be the origin of everything. Then air was chosen by Anaximenes, and he added the ideas of condensation and rarefaction to explain the different forms air takes (for example, solids are just condensed air). This way he could explain how one element could create everything in nature. As time goes on and more scientific understanding of the world is gained, philosophical ideas advance with the times. And then eventually, the philosophic ideas might morph into ideas whose questions and answers are definite enough that instead of being philosophy, they switch into being physical sciences. Is there a science today that didn't start as philosophy?

Life After Death?

In class this week we talked about how Pythagoreans believed "all is number." I thought it was really interesting how we looked at 3 is 1 because it is one thing. Anything that is a unified whole is number one. This conversation led to the unity of people and how our bodies are irrelevant but our essence is a number. Man's real nature is his soul, and his soul is immortal. Or the fact that my life before this could have been the king of England or even a bird. I have always been taught not to believe in reincarnation because of my religion; however, it is a question that is very interesting to me. Do our souls really live forever? And are they transfered to another living creature after death? Im trained to believe they go straight to heaven, hell or purgatory. These theories cannot be proved but I do wonder where are souls do go after we die.

Idol Fallacies

In class this week, we discussed common fallicies. Trying to relate the subject to something I experienced during the week, I thought about the show American Idol. It is then that these fallacies are a common occurance on the talent show. As they go from city to city, holding auditions there are those who can sing and those who cannot. Fallacies are commonly used by those who cant sing as an argument against the judges. In the event of the faulty cause, correlation or association is mistaken for causation. If someone has a bad audition, they often insist that it is because the judges make them nervous, that is the only reason that they could not sing, Although they are nervouse and cannot sing, their nervousness does not cause their lack of talent. Another common fallacy used is ad hominem. This is the challenge of an argument by slandering its sources rather than the content of the argument itself. Often after being told they can't sing, contestants turn on the judges claiming that they have no talent or that they are predjudice against a certain type of person. Also used is the fallacy of appeal to pity. In which one begs for a second audition, often claiming that they want to be the next American Idol really badly or even crying. It made me think, do people really use these fallacies in attempt to win arguments? Seeing this on television we think it's pathetic and futile but we actually use pity, faulty cause, and even ad hominem to get what it is that we want everyday.

Immortal Souls

In our reading we did this week we read about Socrates beliefs on the human soul once someone dies. He's telling his friends not to be worried and not to be sad becuase his soul will live on . This got me thinking. When someone believes that their soul will live on once they pass then wouldn't that take all of the fun out living? I mean if you know that what you do on Earth isn't important becuase youre soul is immortal then wouldn't everyone be running around doing whatever they pleased and becoming horrible people? But what Socrates was saying also made me think that he could've been saying that just to keep his friends from being sad, that believing in immortal souls is just a form of optimism. I do believe that the idea of souls dying and there being no afterlife is very bleak. For example, to believe that babies who've been aborted just die and theres no heaven can be very pessimistic. But sometimes what I view as pessimism is just someone being a realist. Essentially, I still don't know if believing in soulds living on after death is just a form of optimism to help cope with death or if it could really be the truth.

Socrates believes in reincarnation

When I was reading Phaedo, I began making connections between Socrate's argument with the idea of reincarnation. Both have the idea of "souls [that] existed before we were born". The cycle of Death, Soul, and Birth made me think of reincarnation. When then reminded me of my brother. When my brother was younger he use to tell us about how he was in the Civil War, and the people he knew before we were born. At the time it was really funny. But reading Phaedo made me start thinking about the possibility. Another trait about my brother has is that he seems to know so much about history. Now granted he learns it in his high school classes but his memory is like someone who is "recollecting" something he already knew. Maybe my brother is actually Socrates.

Philosophy! It's Everywhere!

I was at church today and my pastor told everyone at the end of his sermon that we had homework. Our homework was to think about why we are Christian. Immediately, I attempted to decipher why I am a Christian and I could not find my answer in a matter of seconds. Is it because this is what I know? I was raised to be Christian? Am I Christian? I just started thinking, then going back, I remembered Philosophy class in the first week or so, and decided to share this on the blog. But in all honesty, why do we believe what we believe?

The magician and the epistemological optimist and pessimist

Just last night I watched Ingmar Bergman's film called "The Magician". In this movie a traveling troupe known as Volger's Magnetic Heath Theatre is invited to the city of Stolkholm to privately perform for a medical officer and his commitee. The medical officer is an epistemoligcal optimist because he believes everything can be explained through science. His friend, however, is an epistemological pessimist, and believes that somethings in life remain inexplicable and can never be known. At the beggining of the film, the doctor and his friend tell the magician why they had sent for him. They reveal they had made a bet to see if magic or "the unknown" really does exist. The doctor, of course does not think it does, while the friend believes otherwise. In the end, though some of the Magician's tricks are de-mystified, he still managed to stupify the audience. Because there is no real conclusion, both the doctor and the friend's opinion are neither backed nor dis-proven. Ingmar Bergman leaves us to decide for ourselves what conclusions to make in regards to "magic".

Radical Flux

After considering the pre-Socratic philosophers whose main points we reviewed in class this past week, I believe the philosopher who intrigues me the most is Heraclitus. I am attracted to the fact that he is a metaphysical and epistemological optimist; to me it is comforting to believe in a definable arche and I think I generally subscribe to the idea that the natural world is knowable, intelligible, and accessible. Heraclitus's idea of fire as arche is especially significant. While today with modern science we know of the basic molecular structure and atomic make-up as applied to the world around us, I think the idea Heraclitus touched on is extremely important. Radical flux-the recognition of the inability to pin anything down and the concept that the world is in a constant state of change-is a critical component of life and is absolutely undeniable. I think it is perhaps the most important aspect of living, or 'becoming' as Heroclitus would say, and is essential to embrace if you intend to discover Truth. To attempt to control your surroundings is naive and to believe that you can is ignorant. I think it is interesting to be able to understand and define life by consciously letting go of any hope of a concrete understanding or definition, and accept the fact that everything is constantly in flux.

Where did all of the philosophers go?

In the past week we having been learning about many philosophers from Thales to Pythagoras. I was thinking about how we had all of these great philosophers in the past, but for the past 50 years or so we have not had a great philosopher. This could be a result of the world advancing technologically and mentally since the times of the acient philosophers where we now know that the world isn't composed of air, wind, or water, but of atoms and the stars aren't celestial being that watch over us. Now that we understand more facts about the world we have less to philosophize about and no major philosophical breakthroughs. This makes me wonder if the age of philosophers is dying due to the advancement of society.

Phaedo Reading

The reading that was assigned to the class brought up the topic of whether a soul is mortal or immortal. This questions has never crossed my mind and probably wouldn't have if it was never brought to my attention. Socrates seemed to have the belief that even after he was dead, he would still be with his friends because his soul would still be around. Although this is a rare assumtion, he still believed that his soul would remain and he would be around the people that believed in what he had to say. There is no way that anyone could disprove this assumption, but there is also no way to actually prove it is the truth. Another thing that interested me about the past 2 classes was the "ARCHE" to all things. It was different philosophers' ideas on how the world came to be. An example would be Pythagoreans and their ARCHE was numbers. They believed that everything in the world was made up of numbers.

Plato Reading

I thought that this was one of the most confusing reading assignments I have ever had to read. I thought most of the reading was written more like a fortune cookie than a story However, I did really like the end of the story when they were debating whether the body or soul were mortal or immortal. It is a very interesting argument but there really is no way of knowing the answer to the question.

Argument Of The Mind

In the past twenty minutes, I've convinced myself that there is nothing I can write this blog on. I've worked myself up into a frenzy trying to somehow connect the material we're learning in class to aspects of my life. I'm sure there are plenty of way that the material does relate. But I convince myself that there is no way. I read some of the amazing posts made by my peers and think there's no way I can come up with something so brilliant. I've always believed that I am the worst writer of all time... and still do to be honest... but in the process of all this thinking, I have led myself into a slippery slope. I've told myself that I am a weak writer, therefore I won't be able to blog anything, therefore my post is going to look so dumb compared to everyone else's, therefore I'm performing poorly in the class, therefore I can't make this post. I create this argument in my own head that is just full of fallacies. I've made a hasty generalization that since I haven't liked writing in the past for other classes, that I will not like writing for a blog, even though I've never actively participated in a blog. I appeal to the pity, as I pity myself for feeling unable to create a post. And I'm appealing to force, as I have to create the posts in order to pass this class. Moving forward, I have to stop creating all these fallacies in my own mind in order to clearly focus on the topics and to grasp a full understanding of the material presented.

phaedo

We talked about the phaedo a lot last class and I didn't agree with Socrates's first argument. His conclusion made the assumption that reincarnation is a proven fact. He said "The dead come to life again..." (47). As far as we know that doesn't happen. We don't know if reincarnation is real. We probably will never know if it is or not. I didn't see in the text how he proved reincarnation. Maybe I missed it I don't know. If he did someone please point it out to me. And since I didn't think that he proved it in the first argument, and then he combined the second argument with the first in proving them I didn't agree with his second argument either.

Imaginationland

While watching Southpark this weekend I stumbled upon the question of epistemology in a three part episode known as Imaginationland. The characters in the show are questioning whether or not they can send a nuke through the portal into Imaginationland. They basically ask, "How do we know what we imagine isn't also real?" This question is made even more complicated by the appearance of man-bear-pig in the real world and the threat of a terrorist attack on Imaginationland. I thought it was really cool that a show like Southpark which is traditionally looked upon as a juvenile or thoughtless cartoon could examine things like epistemology and still be both entertaining and hilarious. I personally think that real is anything one can think of because if one can think of it one could theoretically bring it into existence eventually at some point. So really there is no real vs. imagination or non real its just ideas that have happened already and those that haven't.

Blonde's

When looking over the common fallacies the one that stood out to me the most was the hasty or sweeping generalization. This fallacy states that whatever is true in most instances will be true in all instances. Everyone has heard of all the dumb blonde jokes, or how brunettes are smarter than blondes. I have been blonde since birth, and I have constantly gotten the dumb blonde jokes, or the "blonde moments". Mostly happening in college and having a major in Biology, I felt like the teachers would automatically judge me because of my blonde hair and bubbly personality. Just last December, I finally died my hair brown and I really noticed how much people judge by the color of your hair. This was my real life experience of a hasty or sweeping generalization.

After learning about Thales, who as a philosophical optimist believed that the arche of the world was water, I started thinking about the reasons behind why he thought the arche was water. Things that Immediately came to mind were the obvious such as, the human body is primarily made of water, and same with the earth. Maybe Thales believed that the arche was water because water is the only substance that can completely change its own state, it is also the only substance that can take the shape of anything it is poured into. Water also flows, by Thales saying that the arche is water he may be saying that the world flows, and therefore the world is water. I'm sure there are many other reasons behind what made Thales think the arche was water, but these are the only things that came to mind when I thought about it.

Propaganda

Advertisements are everywhere: on our televisions, the magazines we read, on the streets, the internet, and even when we're not looking for them they may come in the form of pop-up ads, or flyers stuck in our car's windshield. They appeal to our emotions, rather than our intellect, however, whether we are aware of it or not, they often use logical fallacies in order to persuade our minds to believe in their argument.

Appeal to authority may be the most effective fallacy that is used nowadays, or at least one of the most prominent; people pay a lot of attention to Hollywoo actors, famous athletes, musicians, etc. There's a common belief which rules our society at this moment: being attractive or famous gets you attention. So, when we see our favorite actor talk about how efficient the diet pills he/she is taking are, we run to the nearest store to buy the same pills they were holding in our hope to be just like them. However, people are easier to persuade than that, they just have to see bikini-clad girls having a party with a certain brand of beer, to go and buy that beer. All of this is not only due to the images that are presented to us, but to the feelings they create in us. When people see the semi-nude women/men, they become slightly aroused, so next time they go to the supermarket and see the beer which was on the ad, they unknowingly have been conditioned to feel in the same way.

Propaganda is often defined as the attempt to manipulate or shape other's perceptions, and to cause a reaction which benefits the propagandist. Unfortunately, fallacies have become one of the major means in persuading us. We see them in many forms, such as appeal to authority, ad hominem or bifurcation fallacy, and it's clear they have become a pervasive form of influence in our world.

Mesopotamian Philosophy

In my religion class, "What Does the Bible Really Say" the professor brought up philosophers that we discussed in class such as, Thales, Anaximenes, and Heraclitus. We were learning about ancient Mesopotamian stories that are related to various bible stories. One story that we learned about was Enki and Ninmah. Enki was the god or representation of babbling brooks, and sweet water. Enki was part of the famous three gods that each represented specific elements. Anu was the god of the Sky, Enlil was the god of storms, and Enki was water. The professor then mentioned the philosophers that lived in present day Turkey. People have been searching and trying to connect elements of diversity that are found in nature. Our book, "From Plato to Derrida" reveals that "subsequent thinkers, such as Anaximenes, sought not only to find this one common element, but also to find the process by which one form changes into another. These ancient Mesopotamian stories attempt to do the same things. The gods that represented specific elements such as water relates to Thales philosophy. Arche represents water, all is one thing/ unity. Water runs through everything and can take the form of anything, that's why Thales saw it as a unifying force in the universe. The story of Enki who loved humanity and people represents water. He was one of the gods who created the world. Anaximenes, arche is air. Heraclitus, arche was fire and logos. These philosophers share specific elements and ideas surrounding Mesopotamian ideals. People from all backgrounds have tried to connect natural elements to the origin of the world and life. I was surprised that my philosophy class and religion class shared common beliefs and knowledge. I'm glad that this philosophy course is useful in my other classes.

Appealing to the crowd

I have always had one of those "old school" moms who had an age appropriate time for everything. There was an age for when I could go out, how long I could stay out, date, get piercings and even dye my hair. So I would always use the line "well my friends are doing it or has it". Similar to what other people do, she would tell me if they jumped off the bridge would you? I was always a sarcastic person and tell her yes! This was just to get under her skin, but her answers never change. I found that the method, appeal to the crowd, never works. However, if you’re anything like me you'll use it anyway just to bother you parents.

"Panta Rei"

During our ongoing discussions of the origins of philosophy, we covered the life and beliefs of Heraclitus. One concept I found particularly fascinating was Heraclitus’ idea of radical flux (“Into the same rivers we do and do not step"). Heraclitus' philosophy can be captured in just two words: "panta rei”; everything flows, meaning that everything is constantly changing. Only change itself is real and constant like the continuous flow of a river which always renews itself. Dr. Layne gave us the example of stepping into a spot of the Mississippi River twice. No same step would be the “same” because the river is always flowing, essentially bringing in different waters from the flux. So this got me thinking. If change is inevitable, then why do we ultimately fear it? Change is natural, necessary, and acts as a catalyst for growth. For example, if a baby did not change, it would never go from crawling to walking, an older child would never advance from kindergarten to first grade, etc. The reality is that life is change. Seasons change. Jobs change. Relationships change. People change. So why then do we resist what’s natural? Simply because we hold on to everything close to us and try our best to always keep things the same. We must learn to embrace change.

Who's to say you aren't flying if you never look down.

I think about reality a lot and how the basis of perception is often taken for granted. It's easy to get lost in the idea that where you are and what you see, right down to the angle of your eyes and the light of day, will never ever be able to be replicated again. I came up with the quote "who's to say you aren't flying if you never look down" in a poem I wrote awhile ago. Originally when I wrote it, it pertained to dreams and being able to reach beyond the common day (as noted by challenging the notion of walking). Now, taking philosophy I believe this quote may contain a lot more. If I never look at my feet while I'm walking, maybe I'm not walking at all. Yes, in my head I can conceive the idea, and that is what I've asked my body to do. But, what if I ask it to fly, and never look down. Maybe, I'd have to come to the reality that I'm only flying about five feet off the ground, but that doesn't mean I'm not flying, right? This challenging of "reality" can pertain to a lot more than just this idea. Ever action we give a word and a meaning to, but so many times it can be more than that. More than words and action-reality. A basis of OUR perception that may be (and I do believe on many accounts that we do) share with everyone else.

The third argument in Phaedo

To me the most interesting argument in Phaedo was affinity. I didn't really completely get it the first time I read it but upon further review it makes a lot of sense actually. It argues that if the body is visible and material then the soul would be immaterial and invisible. All things visible and material are temporary and subject to change where is immaterial and invisible things are permanent such as ideas ways of thinking. I feel like this is pretty convincing to me because the knowledge of how to harness fire has lasted a lot longer in human history than the first fires that we harnessed have lasted. So the soul would be the knowledge that is immortal whereas the body would be the fire that is bound to be extinguished.

Phaedo

When reading the Phaedo I was intrigued by idea that everything that we have come to know comes from recollection. It made me wonder if this were true. I started to think about how our bodies and minds work, and came to the conclusion that pretty much everything that we have known and will ever know come from recollection. How is it that when we are babies being born, we know to breathe or blink or cry to get our way or attention. These things do not just come naturally which makes me believe that our souls do carry on from past lives. It makes me also think about the psychological theory of Nature vs. Nurture and how some believe that everything that we know come from nurture. That it is our parents and our environments that shape our behaviors and actions. While others believe that who we are was already put into place before we were born and after we are born we show those characteristics and traits.

Class scribe 1-26-11

In class Wednesday we discussed philosophy in cosmology. We examined the word cosmos and fond it to mean something extra like jewelry or cosmetics. Dr. Layne them brought up the question “why something rather than nothing?” We went over the term arche, and related it to architect or original craftsman. This is what makes up all things in the universe. we studied different philosophers’ arches, or what they thought to be the origin or first building block of the universe. Thales was an epistemological optimist and believed the arche of the universe was water. He found unity in all things by relating them to water. He believed this because all things need water to live, it makes up most of the world, it makes up most of us as people, it has different states (gaseous, solid and liquid), it is naturally malleable and you cannot destroy it. I believed that the mind and soul flowed like water, and if you truly know yourself, you know all things.
Anaximander is an epistemological pessimist. He believes that the arche is infinite and cannot be defined or articulated. He believes when you describe someone you are doing them a disservice, because people are constantly changing their identity and all that they are could never be put into words. Like the arche, people are infinite, and indefinable. “My identity does not precede me, for I am constantly creating it”. He appreciates mystery in people and relationships.
Anaximenes is an epistemological optimist. He believed the arche is air, and he believed in measurable certainty, and not relying on just “wisdom” to state facts.
Pythagoras is an epistemological optimist. He believes the arche is numbers. He did not feel that there is a material arche but an abstract one. Knowledge is mathematical certainty and all things can be understood (even the workings of the human brain through waves) mathematical formulas. He finds unity in numbers.
Xenophanes believe there are no anthropomorphic gods. They believe that god has nothing to do with anything that we think he does. Monotheists believe that god things as a whole, sees as a whole, and hears as a whole. We cannot have complete knowledge, because that is only for God.

The Best Possible World

It is interesting to look at the history of philosophy and compare and contrast all the common themes among the great philosophers. One of the most persistent themes in philosophical discussions is that of optimism and pessimism. I find that Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716), has some of the most convincing, if unconventional arguments. Although most philosophers view the world with a pessimistic attitude, Leibniz's perspective is strikingly utopian and buoyant. He believes that God thought about all the different possible templates that the world could be created in, and chose the one in which we live because it's the best. His argument is based off of the premise that God could have created a world with no evil and no bad things, but that world would deprive free wills from humans. Therefore, because a world without evil is also a world without free will, it is not the best possible world. Leibniz's expresses this theory among others in his "Principle of sufficient Reason" which states that for everything, there must be adequate reason for it to exist. I do believe in Leibniz's hypothesis that this is the best world, because without the world's imperfections, we would not be able to appreciate how amazing everything is. We wouldn't be able to "appreciate the sunshine without the rain", if you will. Can you imagine how the world would be if you didn't have to go through hardships. Many people ask for a world like that everyday. But i believe hardships and obstacles are what makes the world interesting and rewarding for someone that achieves his/her goals. If there were no evils, there would be no fear, no obstacles, no overwhelming tasks. However, without all this, i think the world be unlivable to a certain extent. Therefore, I think we all need to stop asking ourselves "what if" and embrace the world the way it is.

Pleasure or Paradise?

Which do people seek more, pleasure or paradise? First let me begin by properly defining the two. According to dictionary.com, pleasure is worldly or frivolous enjoyment; enjoyment or satisfaction derived from what is to one's liking. A paradise is a state of supreme happiness; bliss. Now knowing these definitions, think about it; is what you truly seek worldly pleasures or absolute happiness?

I thought about this question while reading Voltaire’s famous satirical novella Candide. In this story, our protagonist Candide somehow ends up in El Dorado, a secluded utopia. Everything is perfect there, but he wants to leave. He is in love with a beautiful woman and would rather pursue her than live in paradise.
The story’s ending is not a happy one; he leaves paradise and finds his girl, but now she is old and ugly. They spend the rest of their dull days farming without pleasure and far away from paradise. Take it from the Most Interesting Man in the World: “I don’t always have the option. But when I do, I choose Paradise.”

Never really in the same place

After class I found myself thinking a little bit more about what Heraclitus said about “into the same rivers we do and do not step.” It true. I found myself thinking about how we think we are in the same place but we really never are. Even if we try to do it is impossible to actually be in the exact same place that we were in the past, life is continuously changing and as people we grow with every second that goes by. That chain of thought led me to think that we sometimes take some things for granted and we don’t really appreciate the place we are in at the time we are in it.

Freedom or Security?

In my Political Thought class this week we were learning about Thomas Hobbes political philosophies. My professor threw out the question, if one had to choose between freedom or security what would they choose? Thomas Hobbes thought that one would choose security over freedom and most of the class agreed with this conclusion. But I had doubts on whether Americans would choose security over freedom. I agree that most people would say that they would choose security over freedom but as soon as security inconveniences them I think they would choose freedom. The Government has increased security trying to protect us against terrorist attacks, but when they use certain precautions such as increasing TSA security it becomes a concern about are freedom instead of security. There has been a lot of complaining about the new security precautions taking to much time and violating peoples rights. So what is it? Freedom or security? Do we come to the airport early and go through the TSA checkpoints willingly without complaining or do we choose convenience and freedom and risk another bomb being taken on a airplane in someones underwear?

Ramble on by Socrates

After reading the piece of the Phaedo I came to the conclusion that Socrates loves to talk about anything and everything. I thought about how philosophical thought really came into play during the Hellenistic era because they had "spare" time on their hands to think about abstract things. People in other civilizations mostly did not think about "petty' things such as "Am i water, air, number..." But they thought of more important things such as, "Where can i find my next meal, how should i take care of my family, What do I need to survive". People who think about philosophy usually are in a comfortable state of being meaning: They have food and water, they have a roof over their head, they went to schooling (college). Philosophy is a school of thought for people who have the spare time. If there was an apocalypse tomorrow and there were five people alive, they would not think things like, "What is logic? What is this or that?" They would want to survive and rebuild. Philosophy is for someone who has their necessities met (usually). Philosophical thought came into being because of the Greek civilization, where people could stand out on the street and ponder life's questions of the cosmos. However, in a place of survival, philosophical thought would be very scarce if not absent all together. In the Phaedo Socrates is saying these long paragraphs, and the rebuttal is, "Yes, certainly" (page 54 three lines under 81) or "Very likely" (Page 55) or "Yes I think so" (Page 52) .

Are they merely just agreeing with him to agree? Is Socrates that random guy on the corner speaking about random things. Or was he a guy who had enough (extra) time to speak of these abstract ideas. When push comes to shove, and you are trying to survive, the last thing on your mind is to ponder the cosmos, or what is the number 156 or "Am I real", one should be thinking of how to survive and to prosper, but once things have settled down hten you have the time to think of philosophy.

Religion and Fear

In class when we discussed Pythagoreans arche "all is number" the point was brought up that definite is good and indefinite is bad. If this is true than we only fear what we do not understand. I thought that this could be relateable to religion. Some people find religion as a response to their fear of the unknown. They create a higher being as an explaination to the indefinite. They are buying in to pythagoreans philosophy.

The Game

In class this week, we talked about the different groups of philosophers and their philosophical beliefs. The atomists were ones that struck my attention with their claim that their is only void and atoms and that people do things for their own pleasure not to reach a certain end. So yesterday while I was watching one of my favorite tv shows, The Game, I began to think about this. The Game is a show about the lives of professional football players and those close to them. In the last few episodes one of the players Derwin and his wife Melanie were going through a crisis concerning Derwin's child by another woman. Melanie decided she wanted to have a paternity test done on the child to determine if it was his, but she did it without Derwin knowing. I believe Melanie was jealous of Derwin's son and baby's mother and wanted the spotlight all for herself. Her motives really had no end, it was pure pleasure. She wanted the pleasure of having Derwin all to herself not thinking about the possible consequences of her actions. She had no plan it was all instinct. Another of the players, Malik treated his loyal friend T.T. like trash and slept with his girlfriend because he stopped catering to Malik's every need. Malik's goal was to make T.T. feel bad, but once again he acted out of instinct not thinking about the consequences. So one cannot say Malik had an ultimate goal he was acting out of pleasure of seeing T.T. hurt because he may have felt abandoned and hurt also. I don't know if I fully agree with the atomist's point of view, but they may have came on to something. So many people act on instinct and pleasure not realizing that this will not help them get to the end in which they desire to reach.

Adam Stewart- Thoughts on Plado's Phaedo

Following the reading of Plato's Phaedo I was left hanging with a few unanswered questions.

Pluto claims that we acquire knowledge before birth, and that all "learning" is simply recollection. Well, where was the knowledge first acquired? Where did we first learn the law of equality? Did it happen at the genesis of the "cycle of life?" If so, I find that more of an "excuse" than an "explanation" (Terminal cosmological thinking is my biggest issue with this "philosophy"- as I'm sure it's been with all.) Either way, Pluto states that no knowledge comes from experience; so, experience from a past life could not be responsible for "recalled" knowledge in a souls next life. That said, how can Pluto claim he learned things in the past life, and that's why he knows them now? Finally, Pluto uses the "Argument from Opposites" to prove his theory of equality. If this "argument" can be applied for his theory's benefit, why can't I apply it to Pluto's theory of the immortal soul. If the soul can begin, why can't/ why doesn't it end? Clearly, I'm not on Pluto's level as far as critical thinking and mental connectedness, but his theories are interesting, if not a little confusing. I argue out of respect and curiosity. Thoughts?

H.P. Lovecraft was epistemologically pessimistic

I remember reading a quote by the famous horror short story writer H.P. Lovecraft that made him up to be very epistemologically pessimistic, now that I know the label. Here it is:

"The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."

He was also atheist, and anti-theist it seems from his other comments.

Boleyns and Philosophers

The lecture today reminded me of a book I am currently reading named The Other Boleyn Girl. It is a story about two girls who want the same thing at first, and they strive to get it in opposite ways. This reminded me of the arguing of opposites in the Phaedo. Both girls really want King Henry, but only one can have him

The book also reminds me of all the philosophers. Each one thought he was correct. In the book, each girl thinks she is in the right. I feel like this would be many of the ancient philosopher’s views. The book ends with one sister living happily ever after, but the other sister becomes queen and dies shortly after. The sister that became queen got what she wanted but was she actually happy? I think that many philosophers felt this way. Is being famous and well-known better than happiness?

The Phaedo

When I read about Phaedo, there was one argument that was bothering me the whole time. I understood and like the theory that learning is merely recollection, and that knowledge is fully recalling. If the soul has been jumping around to different "bodies" and the soul is a continuance, where did the soul begin? When did it first "learn" in order for the following bodies to recall. In order to remember something, you must have learned of it at one point. There is a single moment when you learn something for the first time. The problem with that theory is, then, where/when did the soul first begin? There must have been a beginning. Right?

If there was no beginning then it always was - like a finite circle....

Recollection of reality

In Plato's Phaedo, which depicts some of the last days of
his teacher Socrates, the Theory of Recollection is
explained, which suggests we know certain things at birth,
or that our souls possess some knowledge before we were able
to learn. Things like absolute beauty are included in this,
which if I accused of being untrue, I have then faulted my
own argument by means of absolute equality. Visually a child
can decide two things are equal, physically, or by the way
the look of each object affects him. We do possess the
ability to determine something's inequality as well, in that
one thing appears differently than another, and the mind
then inherently picks one it prefers over the other, making
superior to the other. Therein, providing a simplistic
definition of beauty, or to make a visual distinction
between two things, to judge them by how or how not equal
they are, the theory holds true.
But there is also the factor of the soul, which is
suggested to be the reason why we know things before birth.
If the soul is, in fact, knowledgeable before it enters or
is assigned a body, from what source could it have learned
such things? Was the soul watching mortals from the heavens
or conversing with other souls or did it read it in a book?
Or, if we hold the theory true, did the soul then know such
things at the time of its own creation? Then that would make
souls, perhaps, as mortal as the person they inhabit? There
could be an infinity of forms coming into existence that did
so with previous knowledge, and the same question of where
it obtained such knowledge can be repeated, making it
endless.
By this theory it seems that all things exist in their own
reality, and there are none more immortal than other forms,
and nothing is really invisible, but it is all hidden from
others. It could merely be the knowledge of the "others"
that is missing from the whole picture, which makes it
impossible to be positive of anything, even any of the
aforementioned, Plato's theories, Socrates' theories, modern
medicine, good, or evil.
But thinking so would make any drive for knowledge grim, to
continually think that everything you know to be true could
be absolutely false, and that one reality could be different
than another's reality.
So perhaps we only think the things we do out of fear of
feeling worthless, and that there is greater knowledge at
the next step, death, and we will be conscious of this
knowledge in the end. But at Phaedo puts it, there will
never be an actual end, just a continuance. And in our
existence we may "forget" all we have learned, and be
forced to recollect it all over again.

Sex and the City 2!

When Dr. Layne was talking about the different types of arguments, I immediately thought of Sex and the City 2 when Samantha and the girls have to hide from the public after her bag is ripped open and condoms come flying out. Sex and the City 2 came into my mind right after Dr. Layne explained the argument type: appeal to force. The people of Abu Dhabi start shouting at her and forcing upon her their beleifs of not showing things like condoms in public. The people of Abu Dhabi did not care that Carrie, Samantha, Miranda, and Charlotte were Americans. All they cared about were their ideas of modesty and that everyone else was wrong.

Stereotypical Black Women

As an African American female, I am very aware of the many stereotypes that people place on me and other African American females. I know that as humans, we tend to jump to conclusions and make generalizations about almost everything. As I looked through the list of fallacies that were covered in class, I realized that the common fallacy of sweeping generalizations is one that continues to plague human beings. I know that people have tons of characteristics that they assume are traits of black females, but of course we know that it’s impossible for everyone in a group to be the same. I know nine times out of ten, television shows portray black women as loud, aggressive, angry, and obnoxious. The perfect example of this can be shown in the following video clip from a show called “Everybody Hates Chris”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhspzWX03Ak

This video portrays a black wife becoming extremely angry and over dramatic about some comments her husband made. Although it is easy to make assumptions about people, we must try not to fall into this trend. I am actually the complete opposite of the stereotypical black woman. I am very quiet and reserved, not very outspoken at all, and although we all get angry about things, I am not one to express my anger in an openly aggressive manner. So what is true in part is most definitely not true of the whole. Yes, there may be a large portion of black women who have these specific traits like being loud, aggressive, angry, and obnoxious. However, people must remember that when stereotypes describe a group of people, the description doesn’t necessarily describe 100% of the group.

Faulty Cause

Today I realized that I am often making invalid arguments with myself. For example, today I prayed this morning before going to class, something I don't usually do, and I know I did well on my quiz. Then later during work my friend donated some money to one of my fundraisers. I almost immediately thanked God for my good fortune that morning, as if it was Him I needed thank for the good grade on my quiz instead of me studying for it or it was God who spurred my friend to donate. This argument would be a case of faulty cause. But this could also depend on my depth of faith in God. For example, if I believe that all good comes from God, then yes I could say that God spurred my friends giving nature this morning. And maybe I still want to thank God for the fact that the questions on the quiz corresponded with the little material I was able to study. Does that make me illogical? So what is the point of argumentation if people like me choose to believe something somewhat illogical even when we know it? I can’t even remember the last time I heard someone say ‘oh yeah you’re right, I was wrong’. And it’s not just religion, it’s politics, and unfortunately sometimes history and science. Where is the truth?

Is Knowledge Really a Recollection?

In the Phaedo, a point was brought up about learning - how it is merely a recollection of thoughts that we already know. In a sense, it's inherent intelligence that we are born with. But I don't see how that is actually the case. Knowledge, much like everything else is ever changing - obviously we have knowledge of things such as murder, etc... - but on the other side, knowledge changes with the environment that it is in.

For instance, if knowledge is recollecting past thoughts or inherited thoughts, then we would be essentially going in endless circles and never resolving from anything. This thought is simple - lets say that we are learning about science. The atom is the basic form of life, a stable factor. But the variable is the environment, and with the every changing environment, how can we be sure the actual form of life that the atom will take on? Obviously this is very complex, and I am getting confused by writing it - but to me there's two main points of this. 1) If knowledge is simply a recollection of thoughts, something that lives on originally, how are we advancing at such a quick rate and why is the idea of "knowledge" changing every day - with thoughts, beliefs, and ideology changing with it. 2) If knowledge is inherited,why do we face reoccurring problems through the world?

Granted this may not have been the intended argument of the Phaedo, but it begs the question of if knowledge is reoccurring, then why do we continue to face the same challenges?

Philosphy and Race

Although I would never have thought before that philosophy could deal with race, I learned through the readings for my Race and Ethnic Conflict class that it can deal with it, not necessarily the subject of philosophy, but how philosophy teachers were the majority mentioned in the readings for that class to be teaching those types of classes. It makes a lot of sense to me now, because the teachers in the readings were talking about how to justify and argument in a class like that when things get heated and emotional, and how a person can realize how unfair they are being, and more than that, how what they are saying is racist when they realize what they are saying when they are arguing with another has no premises at all to be backed up with. Through this they often times realize what meaning what they are saying holds and are able to become a better person because of it.

Class Synopsis for Wednesday 01/26/11

Milesians, Thales, Anaximender, Anaximenes, Xenophanes, Pythagoreans ---26^th January 2011.

Class Synopsis

Wednesday’s class focused on five different philosophers and what they thought the arche, meaning origin, was. Thales believed the arche was water. He was an epistemological optimist, saying knowledge is possible. Origin is unity and because of this, water must be the arche. Water exists in all living things. It is life-giving and runs through everything like the mind. Water cannot be destroyed, and so because the mind is like water, the mind is immortal. In relation to the Phaedo, the mind is immortal.

Anaximender believed the arche was indefinite, and said that which cannot be defined or limited, made definite. In this way he was an epistemological pessimist. All definition is futile, so finding an arche was futile since it can not be defined. There was appreciation in recognizing the mystery of people, and therefore the mystery of arche.

Anaximenes, however, was a metaphysical and epistemological optimist. He believed the arche was air. Like Thales, Anaximenes said all things are a certain amount of air, rather than water. Knowledge is not just abstract, but certainty. Because of Anaximenes, scientists look for measureable certainty.

Xenophanes was an epistemological pessimist. He had a denial of anthropomorphic gods, and he was the first to speak about monotheism. Monotheism was discussed before Christianity began. Xenophanes also believed there is no complete knowledge for man.

The last philosopher we covered was Pythagoras said the arche was numbers and that “all is number.” The world is not only rational, but also mathematical. In this way, like Anaximenes who believed in measurable certainty, he believed all things can be determined with an exact certainty. Everything is related in a unified whole, like all numbers are one. A definition is good and indefinite is evil. Anaximender believed the opposite, because he believed there is mystery in the indefinite. In relation to the Phaedo, numbers can not be destroyed just like the soul can not be destroyed, and the soul is man’s real nature.

Class Synopsis for Monday (1/24/2011)

Monday’s class focused on introducing common fallacies through definition and by the use of examples. Early in the class, one student respectfully questioned the purpose of learning them in the first place. Dr. Layne answered that by recognizing fallacies, we can learn to avoid them, which will help us make stronger arguments and leave us better suited to engage in responsible dialogue later on. The first common fallacy we discussed was “Faulty Cause”; which is based merely off superstition. “Faulty Cause” is when we associate a cause with another because it just so correlated at the same time. One example was a black cat crossing someone who’s involved in a car accident later that same day. The next common fallacy was “Hasty or Sweeping Generalization”. This is when we assume that what is true of the whole will also be true of the part, or that what is true in most instances will be true in all instances. One example was claiming that because one student is lazy, all students are lazy. We then covered “Faulty Analogy” which can apply literally or figuratively. “Faulty Analogy” occurs when we assume that because two things are alike in some respects, that they are alike in other unknown respects. We used the analogy “Life is like a toilet paper, long and useful” as an example. There was then a discussion on the use of analogies in an argument. One student argued that starting off an argument with an analogy makes it weak, while Dr. Layne believed that an analogy is usually better than using than a definition because it appeals to all people rather than just one. We then moved on to cover “Appeal to Ignorance”. This fallacy attempts to use an opponent’s inability to disprove a conclusion as proof of the validity of the conclusion. So by saying “You can’t prove I’m wrong” you’re practicing “Appeal to Ignorance”. The next fallacy was “Appeal to Pity”. This occurs when an arguer tries to get people to accept a conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone. A student making excuses to his teacher about a grade is a perfect example of this fallacy. We then discussed “Appeal to Force”; which is the kind of argument that basically says if you don’t agree with my conclusion, bad things will happen to you. The seventh fallacy we covered was “Bifurcation/False Dilemma”, which is an “all or nothing” fallacy that offers no grey area. The quote “Either you’re with us or against us” directly applies here. “Ad hominen” followed afterward. This fallacy attempts to refute an argument by slandering the source of the argument, rather than the substance of the argument itself. The example we used was “There is no reason to listen to the arguments of those who oppose school prayer, for they are the arguments of atheists!” The next fallacy dealt with pointing out the hypocrisy of the person making the argument. This fallacy is referred to as “Tu Quoque”. One example was the U.S. criticizing the human rights policies of third world nations. The tenth fallacy was “Equivocation”, which allows a word or term in an argument to shift its meaning during the course of the argument. Dr. Layne’s example was “Only man is rational. No woman is a man. Therefore, no woman is rational.” We then discussed “Begging the Question”, A.K.A. Complex Question, which entails making an argument with a conclusion based on an unproven assumption. One example was stating that abortion is murder since killing a baby is an act of murder. We then discussed “Tautology” which is a sub-category of circular argument. It deals with defining terms and qualifying them. The second to last fallacy, “Appeal to Authority”, attempts to justify an argument by citing a highly admired or well-known, not necessarily qualified, figure. And finally, the last fallacy we covered was “Appeal to Tradition”. This fallacy means that we should simply continue to do things as they have been done in the past.